6 ms·

Accurate picture reproduction is now somehow a negative?

mikeash 10y ago
Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Other examples include higher framerates for movies, digital photography, and compact discs. If you live with a technology for long enough, you can start to see its flaws as advantages instead.
- mtanski 10y ago
  A Stockholm syndrome of sorts?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Only I'm someone working with 4K video and beyond professionally, not some grandpa tied to the ways of yore.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't see why that would disqualify you from what I said. Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone. Maybe take the opposite reading of this observation? E.g. that those tech-savvy people know what they are talking about, and are not merely nostalgic or whatever? First, vinyl vs mp3/WAV is not the same as 24fps vs higher frame rates, and conflating technical issues (each with their own characteristics and/or tradeoffs) is not really illuminating the subject matter. Some things are not merely an issue of "technological capability" but tied to human physiology (the eye, etc). The same way that a screen with 50,000 lumens is not naively "brighter = better" but blinding, or a 150dB headphone is not "louder = better" but physically damaging the ear. Yeah, 150dB dynamic range is great, but nobody can hear it, and nobody can tolerate the upper range of volumes it takes to reproduce the full range on a speaker. With color, on the other hand, it's not like that. The more, the better (24bit, 32bit, 64bit, etc). With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc. Note also that we, for example, have been technically lowering the resolution of photographs (smoothing the skin) to make portraits appear more pleasant since forever. It's one of the main staples in fashion and magazine portrait photography. And that's not because "some old-fashioned people like smoother skin vs detailed skin". It's inherently better looking unless one likes wrinkles, pores and detailed nose hairs.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing. Reality is basically infinite fps. We all get by just fine, and the general consensus is that the effect is quite pleasing as long as the subject matter itself is. Smoothing skin in photographs is entirely different. That's a selective effect applied before it reaches the display. Using higher resolution doesn't somehow force photographers not to airbrush. As another commenter said, sometimes people deliberately decrease fidelity for effect, like filming in black and white after color was available. Doing it deliberately in a specific context for one work is totally different from a blanket declaration that 8k is fundamentally worse than 4k.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing. Reality is basically infinite fps. Extreme close ups, action sequences, camera panning and traveling are not part of reality. Nor do we change camera angles several times per minute in a discontinuous fashion. Cinema is not a full real world simulation, it is a technical way to tell stories.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Sure reality has extreme close ups, action sequences, and panning. I'm not sure what traveling refers to, since the obvious interpretation is absurd. I don't get the argument with changing camera angles. If our eyes really do need 1/24th of a second to adjust for a cut, then a high-fps film can replicate that with multiple blank frames. I get that cinema isn't reality, but the more capable the medium is, the more choices the filmmaker has for telling their story. I can buy that 24fps might be the best choice sometimes. I don't buy that it's the best choice for everything. It would be a crazy coincidence if a framerate chosen a century ago due to technical limitations when dealing with cellulose just happens to be the perfect framerate for cinema.
        modfodder 10y ago
        HFR and 8k require rewriting the rules of set design, makeup, lighting and post-production for non-documentary work as they expose the artificiality of fictional narrative. Rather than feeling like you're in the movie, you feel like you're on the set, seeing all the fake backdrops, cables, and acne. HD (and 4k) had similar issues, but not to the extent that HFR and 8k does. Although both HFR and high resolutions do work extremely well for sports and nature documentaries where suspension of disbelief is unnecessary, at the moment both are worse for narrative filmmaking using current techniques. The Hobbit (shot 48fps 5k 3D)had mixed results using HFR. The scenes shot on location with less CGI looked awful (like low budget early 80s BBC mid day dramas) while the green-screen, heavy CG scenes felt like being in a video game (in mostly a good way). Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (shot at 120fps 4k 3D) looked absolutely horrible, like early HDCam home movies. It was impossible to get swept up into the movie and made an ok script and good acting feel much worse than it actually was. I do believe someone will crack the code on HFR, but it will first require the right source material (The Hobbit and Billy Lynn's Long Walk Home were not it). I suggest utopian sci-fi or something set in a sterile environment. But even beyond that they have to figure out the lighting, makeup and set-design (and the extra burden HFR and 8k puts on post-production, especially for CGI/VFX). One element that actually helps make a film feel cinematic is a slight softness to the image. The best looking digital cinema uses on camera filters and/or post-process to help achieve this look that comes naturally from film shot at 24fps. Younger audiences who've grown up on HD and HFR video games are less bothered by the differences, but audiences usually don't really know what they want until they see it (one reason that early audience feedback is poison to the process). background note: 20years experience working in production and post-production
- kijin 10y ago
  Or rather, you learn to take advantage of the flaws of the current technology to create the kind of visual experience that you want. When the technology changes, it will take a while for everyone to learn how to take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of the new platform to create different kinds of visual experiences, and in the meantime you get less than optimal results. Some directors still shoot movies in black and white from time to time, not because they think color is inferior, but because they think black and white is better suited for the specific movie they want to shoot.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    Definitely. I feel like "The Hobbit" was the wrong vehicle to introduce audiences to HFR, for example, and I hope it hasn't soured directors or studios on exploring what's possible artistically at higher frame rates.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  Say, your nephew is an inexperienced driver. He used to drive an old beater but has worked hard for a year and buys a new car with a lot of horsepower. He gives you a lift, and it's an uncomfortable constant stop and go. Technically, the new car is better, but the driver doesn't understand that he should treat it differently, resulting in a worse ride than the old car. Say, your cousin has been cooking as a hobby for a while. They move to a bigger house with a new kitchen and can finally get a big spice rack and a deep frying machine. They proceed to deep fry everything and put all possible spices on it. It tastes bad and monotonic. Your friend plays in a band. They've been gigging a while and got new PA equipment that they say sounds less muddy than their old cheap crap. You go to a concert. The treble is so harsh you can't stand it and have to leave. Some examples where some new tool is, in theory, better. But it turns out a worse end result because lack of skill in using it. I find many technically oriented people don't understand this. They point out to some number saying "well this makes it absolutely better". Sure, numbers might be easy to measure. But it's the end result that's important to most people.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    None of those would be reasons to avoid a new car, bigger kitchen, newer PA equipment, etc. They just show that there can be a learning curve. Your cousin's cooking is probably going to be a lot better once he gets the hang of it, and your friend's music will too. Your nephew's driving may not improve, but only because what we see as "good driving" lines up poorly with what a nicer car provides. Not every film has to be made with the latest technology. Sticking with analog or black-and-white or 24fps is a perfectly valid artistic choice. But it's an artistic choice made by the film creator, not some advantage to the older stuff. Cinemas should be using the most accurate reproduction they can. Filmmakers can then dial it back in the actual film if they think that's better. The comment I was replying to wasn't saying 8k might produce worse results sometimes, it was arguing that 8k and higher fps would just be worse, period.
    - Gravityloss 10y ago
      Ok, so we agree the things that were limitations could also be used for artistic effects. (I technically disagree about the avoidance: don't buy something if you're not going to bother learning how to use it.) Then, let's look at the reproduction part only. Technically, it might work. More choice in reproduction. But maybe in the real world, movie theaters (and certainly in the television world!) would crank up the brightness and edge sharpening and frame interpolation to make the director's artistic material look totally horrible. If you think about the whole life cycle of any kind of art delivered to some audience, it's lined with these huge pitfalls at every point. Maybe I'm obsessive compulsive about it.
coldtea 10y ago
That's like asking "feeding yourself is now somehow a negative" when people talk about obesity. It's not always a naive "the more the better" issue. Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example. Similarly, faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes.
- dpark 10y ago
  > Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example. Your eyes can't see human faces 8 feet tall either but no one seems to think that movies are better on 20 inch screens. To the extent that movies look unnatural in extremely high resolution, that's an issue where directors need to learn to use the medium effectively. It's certainly not more natural to see blur or pixelation instead of pores. > faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes. Only because we've been trained to expect films to be a juddery 24 fps experience. If high frame rates become commonplace they'll look commonplace.
- josho 10y ago
  I don't follow. Even looking painfully close to my retina displays the picture still looks great. There is no point where suddenly skin pores become noticeable when they weren't previously. If you see skin pores in a movie then that's the fault of the makeup department--I recall reading early HDTV productions struggled with this. Rather, I think the reason why theatres don't benefit from 8k is that from a certain distance increased resolution doesn't have a benefit. E.g. If you ever get close to a billboard you may notice that the resolution of the ad is quite poor, but from street level it looks perfectly fine. We aren sitting much farther than 10' from the theatre screen, so more resolution won't be noticeable given the distance from the screen for most of the audience.
- 10y ago

Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Other examples include higher framerates for movies, digital photography, and compact discs. If you live with a technology for long enough, you can start to see its flaws as advantages instead.

mtanski 10y ago
A Stockholm syndrome of sorts?
coldtea 10y ago
>Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before. Only I'm someone working with 4K video and beyond professionally, not some grandpa tied to the ways of yore.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't see why that would disqualify you from what I said. Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone. Maybe take the opposite reading of this observation? E.g. that those tech-savvy people know what they are talking about, and are not merely nostalgic or whatever? First, vinyl vs mp3/WAV is not the same as 24fps vs higher frame rates, and conflating technical issues (each with their own characteristics and/or tradeoffs) is not really illuminating the subject matter. Some things are not merely an issue of "technological capability" but tied to human physiology (the eye, etc). The same way that a screen with 50,000 lumens is not naively "brighter = better" but blinding, or a 150dB headphone is not "louder = better" but physically damaging the ear. Yeah, 150dB dynamic range is great, but nobody can hear it, and nobody can tolerate the upper range of volumes it takes to reproduce the full range on a speaker. With color, on the other hand, it's not like that. The more, the better (24bit, 32bit, 64bit, etc). With fps, again, there are issues related to the eye, how the "afterimage" works, when visual information becomes too distracting or overbearing, etc. Note also that we, for example, have been technically lowering the resolution of photographs (smoothing the skin) to make portraits appear more pleasant since forever. It's one of the main staples in fashion and magazine portrait photography. And that's not because "some old-fashioned people like smoother skin vs detailed skin". It's inherently better looking unless one likes wrinkles, pores and detailed nose hairs.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing. Reality is basically infinite fps. We all get by just fine, and the general consensus is that the effect is quite pleasing as long as the subject matter itself is. Smoothing skin in photographs is entirely different. That's a selective effect applied before it reaches the display. Using higher resolution doesn't somehow force photographers not to airbrush. As another commenter said, sometimes people deliberately decrease fidelity for effect, like filming in black and white after color was available. Doing it deliberately in a specific context for one work is totally different from a blanket declaration that 8k is fundamentally worse than 4k.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >I'm not exactly clueless myself. I've yet to see an argument for lower-fidelity technology that is remotely convincing. Reality is basically infinite fps. Extreme close ups, action sequences, camera panning and traveling are not part of reality. Nor do we change camera angles several times per minute in a discontinuous fashion. Cinema is not a full real world simulation, it is a technical way to tell stories.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Sure reality has extreme close ups, action sequences, and panning. I'm not sure what traveling refers to, since the obvious interpretation is absurd. I don't get the argument with changing camera angles. If our eyes really do need 1/24th of a second to adjust for a cut, then a high-fps film can replicate that with multiple blank frames. I get that cinema isn't reality, but the more capable the medium is, the more choices the filmmaker has for telling their story. I can buy that 24fps might be the best choice sometimes. I don't buy that it's the best choice for everything. It would be a crazy coincidence if a framerate chosen a century ago due to technical limitations when dealing with cellulose just happens to be the perfect framerate for cinema.
      - modfodder 10y ago
        HFR and 8k require rewriting the rules of set design, makeup, lighting and post-production for non-documentary work as they expose the artificiality of fictional narrative. Rather than feeling like you're in the movie, you feel like you're on the set, seeing all the fake backdrops, cables, and acne. HD (and 4k) had similar issues, but not to the extent that HFR and 8k does. Although both HFR and high resolutions do work extremely well for sports and nature documentaries where suspension of disbelief is unnecessary, at the moment both are worse for narrative filmmaking using current techniques. The Hobbit (shot 48fps 5k 3D)had mixed results using HFR. The scenes shot on location with less CGI looked awful (like low budget early 80s BBC mid day dramas) while the green-screen, heavy CG scenes felt like being in a video game (in mostly a good way). Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (shot at 120fps 4k 3D) looked absolutely horrible, like early HDCam home movies. It was impossible to get swept up into the movie and made an ok script and good acting feel much worse than it actually was. I do believe someone will crack the code on HFR, but it will first require the right source material (The Hobbit and Billy Lynn's Long Walk Home were not it). I suggest utopian sci-fi or something set in a sterile environment. But even beyond that they have to figure out the lighting, makeup and set-design (and the extra burden HFR and 8k puts on post-production, especially for CGI/VFX). One element that actually helps make a film feel cinematic is a slight softness to the image. The best looking digital cinema uses on camera filters and/or post-process to help achieve this look that comes naturally from film shot at 24fps. Younger audiences who've grown up on HD and HFR video games are less bothered by the differences, but audiences usually don't really know what they want until they see it (one reason that early audience feedback is poison to the process). background note: 20years experience working in production and post-production
kijin 10y ago
Or rather, you learn to take advantage of the flaws of the current technology to create the kind of visual experience that you want. When the technology changes, it will take a while for everyone to learn how to take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of the new platform to create different kinds of visual experiences, and in the meantime you get less than optimal results. Some directors still shoot movies in black and white from time to time, not because they think color is inferior, but because they think black and white is better suited for the specific movie they want to shoot.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  Definitely. I feel like "The Hobbit" was the wrong vehicle to introduce audiences to HFR, for example, and I hope it hasn't soured directors or studios on exploring what's possible artistically at higher frame rates.
Gravityloss 10y ago
Say, your nephew is an inexperienced driver. He used to drive an old beater but has worked hard for a year and buys a new car with a lot of horsepower. He gives you a lift, and it's an uncomfortable constant stop and go. Technically, the new car is better, but the driver doesn't understand that he should treat it differently, resulting in a worse ride than the old car. Say, your cousin has been cooking as a hobby for a while. They move to a bigger house with a new kitchen and can finally get a big spice rack and a deep frying machine. They proceed to deep fry everything and put all possible spices on it. It tastes bad and monotonic. Your friend plays in a band. They've been gigging a while and got new PA equipment that they say sounds less muddy than their old cheap crap. You go to a concert. The treble is so harsh you can't stand it and have to leave. Some examples where some new tool is, in theory, better. But it turns out a worse end result because lack of skill in using it. I find many technically oriented people don't understand this. They point out to some number saying "well this makes it absolutely better". Sure, numbers might be easy to measure. But it's the end result that's important to most people.
- mikeash 10y ago
  None of those would be reasons to avoid a new car, bigger kitchen, newer PA equipment, etc. They just show that there can be a learning curve. Your cousin's cooking is probably going to be a lot better once he gets the hang of it, and your friend's music will too. Your nephew's driving may not improve, but only because what we see as "good driving" lines up poorly with what a nicer car provides. Not every film has to be made with the latest technology. Sticking with analog or black-and-white or 24fps is a perfectly valid artistic choice. But it's an artistic choice made by the film creator, not some advantage to the older stuff. Cinemas should be using the most accurate reproduction they can. Filmmakers can then dial it back in the actual film if they think that's better. The comment I was replying to wasn't saying 8k might produce worse results sometimes, it was arguing that 8k and higher fps would just be worse, period.
  - Gravityloss 10y ago
    Ok, so we agree the things that were limitations could also be used for artistic effects. (I technically disagree about the avoidance: don't buy something if you're not going to bother learning how to use it.) Then, let's look at the reproduction part only. Technically, it might work. More choice in reproduction. But maybe in the real world, movie theaters (and certainly in the television world!) would crank up the brightness and edge sharpening and frame interpolation to make the director's artistic material look totally horrible. If you think about the whole life cycle of any kind of art delivered to some audience, it's lined with these huge pitfalls at every point. Maybe I'm obsessive compulsive about it.

coldtea 10y ago

That's like asking "feeding yourself is now somehow a negative" when people talk about obesity. It's not always a naive "the more the better" issue. Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example. Similarly, faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes.

dpark 10y ago
> Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example. Your eyes can't see human faces 8 feet tall either but no one seems to think that movies are better on 20 inch screens. To the extent that movies look unnatural in extremely high resolution, that's an issue where directors need to learn to use the medium effectively. It's certainly not more natural to see blur or pixelation instead of pores. > faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes. Only because we've been trained to expect films to be a juddery 24 fps experience. If high frame rates become commonplace they'll look commonplace.
josho 10y ago
I don't follow. Even looking painfully close to my retina displays the picture still looks great. There is no point where suddenly skin pores become noticeable when they weren't previously. If you see skin pores in a movie then that's the fault of the makeup department--I recall reading early HDTV productions struggled with this. Rather, I think the reason why theatres don't benefit from 8k is that from a certain distance increased resolution doesn't have a benefit. E.g. If you ever get close to a billboard you may notice that the resolution of the ad is quite poor, but from street level it looks perfectly fine. We aren sitting much farther than 10' from the theatre screen, so more resolution won't be noticeable given the distance from the screen for most of the audience.
10y ago